Full Frame vs. u-43

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by uscrx, Aug 19, 2013.

  1. uscrx

    uscrx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    Shasta Cascade
    Someone once said never bump an old thread instead provide a link.

    So here's a lively thread from 16 months ago.

    5D vs. u-43

    Consensus is the lack of high speed zoom and slow focus in u-43 are the reasons to favor FF.

    But how do lenses such as 12-35mm f2.8, 35-100mm f2.8 and improved focus in newer Olympus bodies change this debate... year and half later....
  2. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Well, for me the only issue I ever really had was access to narrow DOF at the wide angle. Beyond that incredibly narrow realm that has little bearing on my shooting and it isn't worth a 6D (Granted I do have an old 5D though that I picked up for $300 used...), μ43 is superbly ideal for me.
  3. jpark1982

    jpark1982 Mu-43 Regular

    Aug 3, 2013
    The only real issue with me is achieving shallow DoF but you can get too shallow. When I was shooting with my RX1, shooting at 2.0 could get some great bokeh but also resulted in more than my fair share of OOF images. This was remedied by stopping down but that would take some of the advantage of having a FF sensor. Don't get my wrong, the IQ was amazing. I'm not trying to say that :43: has comparable IQ to a RX1 or other FF system. But the difference in IQ isn't a deal breaker for me.

    Every system has compromises. FF systems like a D800 or 5DMarkIII has system size and weight to deal with. A RX1 has less than ideal AF and non interchangeable lenses. APS-C mirrorless have larger, bulky lenses, :43: has DoF and a smaller sensor for worse IQ. I could see a FF-NEX having the same issues as the regular NEX, sluggish AF, larger lenses, expensive, etc.

    It's a matter of finding the system that has the compromises that you can live with. With me right now my priorities are speedy AF and light weight, maximum IQ and ultra low light shooting are not. That's not to say that in a few years they won't. I'm sure when my daughter is older and playing sports I'll love having something that can continuously track her. And I hope by then :43: will be able to do so.
  4. burdickjp

    burdickjp Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 25, 2013
    I'll consider the other merits of full frame ( or even APS-C ) when I find a full-frame which has:
    5-axis stabilization
    focus peaking or a good focus screen
    comparable in price to micro-four thirds cameras

    Right now I'm considering the replacement for my E-P2. I'm looking at Pentaxes.
  5. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 2, 2010
    As the originator of that thread, all my original fears of switching back to m43 from the 5d were unfounded. I was incredibly pleased with OM-D and took the kit everywhere, something I would not have done with the 5d kit.

    I sold my original OM-D kit for financial reasons and when I recouped I ended up trying Pentax K5II and APS. Well, while the Pentax was incredible in so many ways, it wasn't the OM-D, a camera I truly loved.

    So, I'm back. What's changed since that thread referenced above? The 17 1.8, 75 1.8, 12-35 2.8, 35-100. While none of the above primes are weather sealed, how many FF or APS lenses are weather sealed.

    For me, any advantages that FF have, or had, or even APS has, are negated by size.

    The OM-D and 17/45 1.8 combo is killer. Add the 75, which I'm hoping to soon get, and the combo is hard to beat by ANY system when you factor in size, image quality and cost.

    Right now, in my small Lowepro Photo Runner bag (which nicely fit my K5II, 16-50 and 50-135 2.8 lenses, and before that my OM-D kit, but could never fit my Canon kit) I have 35mm equivalent 24mm to 600 mm. Try that with FF, APS-C or any other system.

    The 17, 45 and 75mm lenses, at 1.8, will have the same depth of field as my APS-C Pentax lenses had at 2.8 (basiclly FF F4.0) so I'm missing nothing there. AF is faster than Pentax and image quality is fantastic. C-AF in both m43 and Pentax sucks so it is a wash there.

    All in all, unless you are one of the people who really need FF (professional landscape photographers are about the only people I can think of who may "really" need the megapixels a D800 offers) or professional sports photographers who need the C-AF of a pro Canon or Nikon body I can't see why m43 wouldn't work for just about anybody (from an image quality standpoint).

    Are there weaknesses in m43, yes of course. The only really complete systems out there are Canon and Nikon (one could include Leica for its intended audience), but in truth, how many Canon or Nikon buyers progress into the exotic lenses, or even $2000 70-200 2.8s?
  6. darosk

    darosk Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Apr 17, 2013
    Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia
    3 months after selling my 5DIII kit and I've still yet to regret switching. I'm shooting way, more 'for fun'/personal pictures than I've ever been in my life - and I'm happy. The 45 is more than sufficient for the stuff I do, paid or personal. In fact, I ended up selling my 75 because I'm content with what the 45 delivers :)
  7. gochugogi

    gochugogi Mu-43 Veteran

    I suppose I'm in the minority here but I found no need to switch. I love shooting with both FF (EOS) and M43 (and a few other systems as well), but I use my 5D2 the most (so darned easy to shoot with). Ultimately I use them for different purposes and enjoy the variety. It's an inexpensive hobby compared to airplanes, sports cars, sailboats, gambling and women, so it's okay to enjoy the best of both types of camera.
  8. monk3y

    monk3y Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 14, 2013
    in The Cloud...
    Same here:2thumbs:

    Jeffry answered the OP already and I think that's all the info we need without turning this into which one is better thread.

    I must say, for people who currently owns Fullframe stuff and are on the edge about going m43, I think it's better to shoot both side by side for a few weeks or months and check out what to expect before going all the way with m43.

    I did it for 3 months before I went ahead. Like anything else, if you adjust your expectations according to the limitations of the gear, I think you will be happy with the m43. If you expect it to perform exactly like your Fullframe Kit, then I think you are better off using your Fullframe kit.:wink:
  9. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
    Do whatever works best for you. For some it's one, for some it's the other. And even yet for others, it's both.

  10. dfreezy

    dfreezy Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 23, 2012
    Boston, MA
    I don't think you need to be a pro to appreciate the better AF tracking and high ISO performance that FF bodies offer. Especially those non-pros who shoot kids, youth sports, or work in low light venues. To some those are more important features than the size/weight savings u4/3 has to offer.
  11. SkiHound

    SkiHound Mu-43 Veteran

    Jan 28, 2012
    I've never shot FF. If money were no object I'd probably have a FF system. I'd at least like to try using a FF system and evaluate it for myself. But it would be in addition to and not a replacement for, m43. I can take my camera and a lens or two in a small waist pack. I can toss it into a day pack for a hike and hardly notice. It's way less intrusive out on the street than a FF camera. I'm pretty sure I'd leave a FF camera at home or in my trunk way too often. And in the end I'm not sure I'd notice any meaningful IQ difference for anything that I do. It's more of a "is the grass greener on the other side" kind of desire.
  12. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    If that was the consensus, it's out of date. Cameras like the EM-5 and GH3, and lenses like the two Panasonic f/2.8 constant aperture zooms, have rendered any such consensus obsolete. That's coming from a D700 user who shoots sports.
  13. uscrx

    uscrx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    Shasta Cascade
    I'm heavily invested in Canon with 4 DSLR bodies and a few "exotic" lenses.
    Looking to add 500mm f4 or 600mm f4. Was definitely going to add Sigma 120mm-300mm f2.8OS.

    But wait, I hardly ever use DSLR. And the only time I use it, it's only because I think I must use it to capture good photos..but I don't. Yes, I was that obnoxious shmuck parent with a big DSLR and a big white lens attached to a monopod tracking my daughter at the graduation shooting 10fps.

    Can I do everything I need with u-43? You betcha. After all, 90% of my photography today is done with u-43 with very basic kit lens. And good results to boast.

    I just can't seem to let go of DSLR.... :redface:
  14. uscrx

    uscrx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    Shasta Cascade
    I quit flying single engine not so much due to the cost...but it was outright dangerous for me... :eek: Fun as heck...but a few bad landings in 20 knot cross wind scared the heck outta me. And I think it was going to void my life insurance.

    Not into sailboats or gambling.

    No comment on women.. as Mrs. might kick my arse.:tongue:

    Sports Cars.. gotta have it. :2thumbs:
  15. uscrx

    uscrx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    Shasta Cascade
    I do our family portrait about twice a year... studio lights...backdrop.. and everything. And it's always the FF body to the task with 24-70mm or 85mm. Sometimes 70-200mm.

    But the next one, it's going to be u-43. It may help me leave DSLR.

    Well, I need some lenses..
  16. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 2, 2010
    I do all sorts of low light stuff, and in comparison to my Pentax K5II (reputed to be about the best image quality coming from an APS camera) I'd hold the OM-D images up to the Pentax any day. In the same light (one year apart) I would actually hold the OM-D images higher (one of the reasons I switched back) as auto white balance is so much better in the Olympus. With the fast lenses Olympus and Panasonic have introduced, low light isn't a problem at all with this system. With APS or FF you still need fast lenses in low light. A 3.5/5.6 kit zoom in any system is still a slow zoom.

    As for non-pros who shoot youth sports, etc ... Of course there are those who can benefit, and have the money for, the better bodies and the 2.8 lenses. But in 25+ years of shooting high school sports for newspapers, I can probably count on one hand the number of parents on the sideline with "professional" equipment. The majority I've seen have kit zooms, or 50mm 1.8s in film days, and are mystified as to why their photos aren't better.

    There are always exceptions and my needs are not what another's necessarily are. I can only speak from my experiences and extrapolating to what I've seen with a lot of different photographers over the years.

    And with all that said, I bet if the vast majority of users, myself included, look at what the final product is from our efforts it is for viewing on a computer and all this discussion of FF vs. APS vs. m43 is silly:biggrin:

    Ultimately, what it comes down to is what YOU are happy shooting with and what works for you. Just don't disparage my choice, and I won't disparage yours:drinks:
  17. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jul 2, 2010
    And that's the thing. You've nailed it on the head. You have all the fancy stuff, but m43 fits your needs. If you used the 500 and 600 a lot, m43 wouldn't.

    It all comes down to if your needs are met and it seems as though most of them are ...
  18. RT_Panther

    RT_Panther Mu-43 Legend

    May 4, 2011
  19. uscrx

    uscrx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Aug 26, 2011
    Shasta Cascade
    LOL, go to POTN, there are 5D vs. 5DII, 20D vs. 30D, Canon vs. Nikon, 85mm 1.8 vs 1.2.. vs. vs. vs..

    That's what we do... we compare.. we compete... and then we complain..

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.